AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend to these matters and return
this form with your proof.
Many thanks for your assistance.

Query Query Remarks

References

Q1 Please confirm that given names (blue) and surnames/family names (vermilion) have been identified and spelled
correctly.
 Journal Code Article ID Dispatch: 23-JUL-20 CE: No
TAX 12300 No. of Pages: 2 ME: No
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–2 Hershkovitz • (2751–2753) Reject Tutuca, T. chilensis, T. fistulosa

PROPOSALS TO CONSERVE OR REJECT NAMES

1 57
2 58
3 (2751–2753) Proposals to reject the names Tutuca, T. chilensis, and T. fistulosa 59
4 60
5 (Poaceae) 61
Q1
6 Mark A. Hershkovitz 62
7 63
8 Santiago, Chile 64
9 Address for correspondence: Mark A. Hershkovitz, cistanthe@gmail.com 65
10 DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12300 66
11 67
First published as part of this issue. See online for details.
12 68
13 (2751) Tutuca Molina, Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 135, 288. 1810 1919), to which the genus is referred also in current taxonomic data- 69
14 [Gram.], nom. utique rej. prop. bases (GBIF Secretariat, GBIF Backbone Taxonomy, Checklist data- 70
15 Typus: non designatus. set. 2017, https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei; International Plant 71
16 (2752) Tutuca chilensis Molina, Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 135. Names Index. 2012. www.ipni.org; Plants of the World Online. 72
17 1810 [Angiosp.: Gram.], nom. utique rej. prop. http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org; World Flora Online. http:// 73
18 Typus: non designatus. www.worldfloraonline.org [all accessed May 2020]). This placement 74
19 (2753) Tutuca fistulosa Molina, Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 288. evidently stems from Molina’s annotation “post Kalmiam” to 75
20 1810 [Angiosp.: Gram.], nom. utique rej. prop. “Tutuca gen. nov.” (Molina, l.c.: 288) in his “Flora selecta Regni Chi- 76
21 lensis juxta Systema Linneanum” (Molina, l.c.: 277–301). However, 77
Typus: non designatus.As articulated in Hershkovitz Molina placed Tutuca in the Decandria Monogynia of Linnaeus
22 78
(in EcoEvoRxiv, May 29: 48–50. 2020 [https://doi.org/10.32942/ (Sp. Pl.: 373–397. 1753), in which Kalmia is included, and so no
23 79
osf.io/wgaf3]), the taxonomic identity of Tutuca Molina (Sag. Stor. modern taxonomic significance can be afforded to this annotation.
24 Gunckel (in Not. Mens. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. 42: 3–11. 1972;
80
Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 135, 288. 1810) and its single but evidently twice-
25 named species (first in a “Vegetabili del Chili” section and differently republished/reformatted in Chloris Chil. 10(1). Jul 2007) referred 81
26 in a floristic synthesis in the same work; see below) has remained Tutuca to “Senecio fistulosa (Molina) Poeppig ex Lessing” (Astera- 82
27 unresolved for more than two centuries. Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) con- ceae). This is bizarre, because this combination does not exist, Les- 83
28 cluded that the generic name pertains to Chusquea Kunth (in J. Phys. sing (in Linnaea 6: 246. 1831) made no reference to Tutuca or 84
29 Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 95: 151. Aug 1822, Syn. Pl. 1: 254. 9 Dec Molina, and nothing in Molina’s (l.c.) protologue or, for that matter, 85
30 1822) (Poaceae-Bambusoideae), and that both of the species names Feuillée’s (l.c.) description (much less illustration) of “Tutuca Feuil- 86
31 pertain to Chusquea culeou É. Desv. (in Gay, Fl. Chil. 6: 450. lée” remotely suggests Asteraceae. Gunckel may have surmised this 87
32 1853). Rodolfo Philippi (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 22, Beil. 1: identity on the basis of the epithet ‘fistulosa’ shared with another 88
33 8. 1864) first surmised this identity but later (in Anales Univ. Chile Chilean species, but the explanation is inconsequential to the present 89
34 29: 773–774. 1867) rejected it. proposal. 90
35 Another suggested identity was Calandrinia pilosiuscula DC. Calandrinia Kunth (in Humboldt & al., Nov. Gen. Sp. 6, 91
(Montiaceae) (Philippi, l.c. 1867 [as C. compressa Schrad. ex DC.]; ed. fol.: 62. 1823) had appeared to be the best-supported affilia-
36 92
Hershkovitz in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 49. 2019 [as C. compressa]). tion, since Molina cited Feuillée’s work and adopted his taxon
37 93
This was based on the identity of “Tutuca Feuillée” (J. Obs. 3: name and much of its description. This led Hershkovitz
38 (l.c. 2019) to list formally Tutuca as a synonym of Calandrinia.
94
65, t. 41. 1725), not, of course, validly published being pre-1753 (Art.
39 13.1(a) of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). This was an error, in part because Tutuca is the older name. Regard- 95
40 Feuillée’s description and illustration unequivocally pertain to an annual less, an early draft of Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) was poised to propose 96
41 calandrinia, possibly C. pilosiuscula (Hershkovitz, l.c. 2020). Molina to typify Molina’s Tutuca species names with Feuillée’s (l.c.: t. 41) 97
42 (l.c.: 288) erroneously attributed the name T. fistulosa (with typograph- illustration of an annual calandrinia. But re-examination of the 98
43 ical error “V.” for “T.”) to Feuillée, and most, but not all, of his two question (motivated by comments from J. McNeill, written comm., 99
44 treatments (l.c.: 135 & 288) clearly derive from Feuillée’s (l.c.) corre- 24 May 2020) led Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) to conclude that Molina 100
45 sponding description. But there are significant discrepancies as noted had seen Feuillée’s (l.c.) text but not his illustration. This, in turn, 101
46 by Philippi (l.c. 1867) and Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) (see below). Hooker shed new light on the discrepancies between the descriptions of 102
47 & Arnott (Bot. Beechey Voy.: 24. 1830; in Bot. Misc. 3: 335. 1833) Feuillée and Molina. Logically, anything in Molina’s description 103
48 listed “Tutuca Feuill.” in the synonymy of Calandrinia pilosiuscula but absent in Feuillée’s must have been based on Molina’s own 104
49 DC. This was copied by Federico Philippi (Cat. Pl. Vasc. Chil.: 86. observations. The principal discrepancy, as emphasized by Philippi 105
1881; in Anales Univ. Chile, I, Mem. Ci. Lit. 59: 129. 1881) and Reiche (l.c. 1867), was that Molina described Tutuca not as a small annual
50 106
(Fl. Chile 2: 347. 1898; in Anales Univ. Chile, I, Mem. Ci. Lit. 100: herb, but as an evidently woody plant with hollow stems used
51 107
351. 1898). locally to make musical wind instruments. The only candidate
52 plant in southern Chile is Chusquea culeou and, not coincidently,
108
Tutuca also has been classified in Ericaceae (Dalla Torre
53 & Harms, Gen. Siphon. 9: 910. 1907; Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl.: 666. the instrument is known in the indigenous language as “tutuca” 109
54 110
55 111
56 © 2020 International Association for Plant Taxonomy 112

Version of Record 1
 Hershkovitz • (2751–2753) Reject Tutuca, T. chilensis, T. fistulosa TAXON 00 (00) • 1–2

1 or “trutruca” (Finot & al. in Grillo & Venora, Dynam. Processes I consider definitive and unequivocal the taxonomic identity of 57
2 Biodivers. Case Stud. Evol. Spatial Distrib.: 85. 2011; cf. Perez Tutuca Molina as Chusquea culeou. However, this creates nomencla- 58
3 de Arce in Rev. Music. Chilena 40: 74. 1986). Why Feuillée chose tural inconvenience, because, neotypified, Tutuca would have 59
4 this name for an annual calandrinia is not clear. nomenclatural priority over Chusquea and, likewise, either 60
5 However, the partial correspondence between Molina’s descrip- T. chilensis or T. fistulosa over Chusquea culeou. Priority of Tutuca 61
tion and Chusquea culeou does not explain Molina’s attribution of would have applied as well in the case of the newer name
6 62
the name Tutuca to Feuillée, or his co-opting of Feuillée’s descrip- Calandrinia.
7 63
tion, which pertains to Calandrinia and not Chusquea. This Hershko- Chusquea is the largest genus of bamboos, and the name has
8 vitz (l.c. 2020) explained in terms of the phenology of Chusquea been applied relatively uncontroversially for two centuries (Finot
64
9 culeou, which flowers about every 62 years (Guerreiro & Vega. & al., l.c.). Likewise, the name Chusquea culeou has been applied 65
10 in. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 104: 235. 2019). Hershkovitz calculated stably to this common and well-known Patagonian bamboo 66
11 that Molina would not have been able to study the reproductive mor- (Guerreiro & Vega, l.c.). Molina’s names do not appear to have been 67
12 phology of Chusquea culeou. Having seen neither this nor Feuillée’s applied ever by anyone other than Molina. Moreover, with the excep- 68
13 illustration, he would have had no reason to doubt that Tutuca Molina tion of Philippi (l.c. 1864) and Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020), no other ref- 69
14 and “Tutuca Feuillée”, from the same region, were not the same plant. erences to these names associated them with Chusquea. Molina’s 70
15 Hence, he co-opted Feuillée’s description of the reproductive three validly published names retain historical significance, but I can- 71
16 morphology—of an annual calandrinia—to describe a sterile bam- not imagine a more clear-cut case for their formal and outright 72
17 boo. Molina would have seen the leaves of Tutuca Molina, and he nomenclatural rejection. 73
18 described these as alternate, linear, and amplexicaul. Fortuitously 74
19 but unfortunately, this corresponds reasonably well to the stem leaves Author information 75
of annual calandrinias, as described by Feuillée (l.c.). MAH, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8828-7995
20 76
21 77
22 78
23 79
24 80
25 81
26 82
27 83
28 84
29 85
30 86
31 87
32 88
33 89
34 90
35 91
36 92
37 93
38 94
39 95
40 96
41 97
42 98
43 99
44 100
45 101
46 102
47 103
48 104
49 105
50 106
51 107
52 108
53 109
54 110
55 111
56 112

2 Version of Record